Clardy Mfg. Co. v. Marine Midland Business Loans Inc.

• Citation: 88 F.3d 347
• Decision Date: 22 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-10688,95-10688
• Parties: CLARDY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. MARINE MIDLAND BUSINESS LOANS INC, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and Jim L. Ely, Movant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 347

88 F.3d 347

CLARDY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. MARINE MIDLAND BUSINESS LOANS INC, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and Jim L. Ely, Movant.

No. 95-10688.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

July 22, 1996.

Stephen L. Tatum, Beale B. Dean, Richard Wayne Wiseman, Grant Liser, Brown, Herman, Scott, Dean & Miles, Fort Worth, TX, Terri Kay Oliver, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Clardy Mfg. Co.

James E. Essig, John L. Hill, Jr., Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, Houston, TX, Edwin R. DeYoung, Michael Silvey Linscott, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, Dallas, TX, for Marine Midland Business Loans, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before WISDOM, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Clardy Manufacturing Company ("Clardy Manufacturing") sued Marine Midland Business Loans, Inc. ("Marine"), alleging that Marine breached its commitment to lend under a satisfaction contract. Following a bench trial, the district court concluded that Marine had obligated itself to make a loan to Clardy Manufacturing under the satisfaction contract once certain creditworthiness criteria had been satisfied and awarded damages in favor of Clardy Manufacturing. Marine now appeals. Clardy Manufacturing cross-appeals the district court's denial of its claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA") and the district court's failure to consider its alternative common law claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. Concluding that there was no satisfaction contract obligating Marine to make a loan, and that Clardy Manufacturing's remaining claims fail as a matter of law, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and render judgment in favor of Marine.

I

Clardy Manufacturing Company is a family owned business that makes and sells after-market air conditioners for automobiles. In 1989, John Clardy, Jr., began looking for new financing for the company, primarily in order to purchase the shares of the company's retiring founder, his father John Clardy, Sr., and thereby take over ownership of the company. The company also needed financing in order to effect a merger with Premier Parts, Inc., ¹ to refinance its existing debt, and to obtain additional working capital. ² Clardy Manufacturing unsuccessfully sought financing from at least six different lenders. The company was eventually referred to Marine, an asset-based lender with an office in Dallas, Texas. In contrast to a commercial bank, which primarily makes loans based on a company's cash flow, an asset-based lender like Marine makes loans on the basis of a company's collateral.

In the middle of 1990, Clardy Manufacturing discussed a potential loan with Michael Norvet, the senior business development officer for Marine's Dallas office. After Clardy Manufacturing submitted some preliminary financial information, Norvet informed the company that it did not meet Marine's minimum loan requirements. Discussions resumed, however, in the fall of 1991, after Marine reduced its minimum loan requirements from $5 million to $3 million. Clardy Manufacturing had not yet been able to secure financing, and John Clardy, Jr., and Norvet discussed the possibility of a $4 million loan. John Clardy, Jr., provided Norvet with additional financial information about the company, and he also completed Marine's pre-loan questionnaire and submitted the required financial projections.

In early January 1992, representatives from Clardy Manufacturing and Marine met in Dallas to discuss the loan application. John Clardy, Jr., arrived with Richard Berman, the President of Premier Air Parts. Norvet introduced the two men to Jim Ely, Marine's senior regional manager of the Dallas office, and Frank Mederos, Marine's national marketing director. There was conflicting evidence presented at trial regarding what exactly the Marine representatives told John Clardy, Jr., and Berman regarding Marine's credit approval process. Nevertheless, the parties agree that at the close of the meeting, Mederos authorized the issuance of a proposal letter, which would permit Marine to proceed further in evaluating Clardy Manufacturing's loan application. Accordingly, at another meeting ten days later, a proposal letter, or letter agreement, was signed by John Clardy, Jr., and Norvet. Clardy Manufacturing argues that this letter constituted a "satisfaction contract," while Marine, on the other hand, contends that it was merely an agreement to undertake due diligence.

Marine proceeded to conduct due diligence aimed at evaluating the financial health of Clardy Manufacturing, as well as the company's collateral that would form the basis for the $4 million loan. As part of this effort, Marine had appraisals made of Clardy Manufacturing's real property, inventory, and equipment. Marine's auditors also conducted a field examination of Clardy Manufacturing's books and records. In April of 1992, the resulting due diligence information was analyzed by David Boyd, the senior officer at Marine's Dallas office. Boyd's responsibility was to generate the "PCREF," Marine's computer generated, credit evaluation form. Based on the computer analysis, Boyd concluded that Clardy Manufacturing did not meet all of Marine's credit approval requirements, and as a consequence the loan application would have to go through an additional level of home office approval. Nevertheless, Boyd, who did not have any credit approval authority, recommended that the loan be approved.

Clardy Manufacturing's loan application and the PCREF results were then reviewed by Kurt Putkonen, who was administrative vice-president and territory manager for Marine. Putkonen also had no credit approval authority. After making an independent evaluation of the loan documents, Putkonen decided not to recommend to the home office that Clardy Manufacturing's loan application be approved, ³ and in the middle of June 1992, Norvet communicated to John Clardy, Jr., that the credit approval process had come to an end.

In the middle of March 1992, while Marine was still conducting due diligence, John Clardy, Jr., introduced Norvet at a lunch meeting to Graeme McDougall, the Chairman of Environmental Products Amalgamated ("Environmental Products"), an Australian company that sold freon recovery and recycling equipment. John Clardy, Jr., was considering entering into a licencing agreement with Environmental Products. Although the Environmental Products deal was not part of the proposed Marine loan package, Berman testified at trial that Clardy Manufacturing, as a matter of priorities, was not going to enter into the Environmental Products deal unless the Marine loan was approved. At this lunch meeting, Norvet is alleged to have assured John Clardy, Jr., and McDougall that a "commitment letter" would be issued within the next two to five days, or in other words, that the loan would be approved within a matter of days. John Clardy, Jr., claims that based on this assurance, he entered into the contemplated licencing agreement with Environmental Products two days later. According to Clardy Manufacturing, Marine's failure to approve the loan made it impossible for the company to make timely payments as called for in the Environmental Products licencing agreement.

Clardy Manufacturing eventually brought suit against Marine alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. After a bench trial, the district court awarded Clardy Manufacturing $8,111,467 on its breach of contract claim, rejected the DTPA claim, and declined to consider Clardy Manufacturing's alternative common law theories of recovery. Marine appeals from the award of damages, and Clardy Manufacturing cross-appeals from the district court's denial of its DTPA claim and failure to consider its alternative common law claims.

II

A

Marine contends that the district court erred in concluding that the January 1992 letter agreement was a satisfaction contract. The interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law which we review de novo. Guidry v. Halliburton Geophysical Servs., Inc., 976 F.2d 938, 940 (5th Cir.1992). However, when a contract is ambiguous and its construction turns on the consideration of extrinsic evidence, we review the district court's interpretation for clear error only. Id. The initial determination that a contract is ambiguous, such that its interpretation warrants the consideration of extrinsic evidence, is itself a legal conclusion subject to de novo review. Id. We look to state law to provide the rules of contract interpretation. Matter of Haber Oil Co., Inc., 12 F.3d 426, 443 (5th Cir.1994).

Under Texas law, a contract is ambiguous if, after applying established rules of interpretation, the written instrument "remains reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning." R & P Enterprises v. LaGuarta, Gavrel & Kirk, 596 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Tex.1980); see also Towers of Texas, Inc. v. J & J Systems, Inc., 834 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.1992) ("A written instrument is ambiguous when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful or it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, taking into consideration the circumstances present when the instrument was executed."); Harris v. Rowe, 593 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tex.1979) (requiring a "genuine uncertainty" as to which of two meanings is proper). On the other hand, if a contract is worded so that a court can give it a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation, it is not ambiguous. R & P Enterprises, 596 S.W.2d at 519. Where the contract is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence "will not be received for the purpose of creating an ambiguity or to give the contract a meaning different from that which its language imports." Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. v. Daniel, 150 Tex. 513, 243 S.W.2d...